S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 177, 3 July 1900, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

Monday, July 2nd.—Before Mr. R. L. Stanford, S.M. JUDQMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS, Harbour Board v. M. W. Lake, claim 8s 9d, costs Gs; same 7. O. MoPhee, claim paid, costs 11; Granville, v. Karina and Karina, claim £35, costs, £3 2s (Mr. Hutchen for plaintiff) ; A. B. Gamblin v. A. Goodson, claim £ls Is 4d, costs £1 12s 6d. (Mr. Weston for plaintiff.) A CASE FOE BEHEARINa. Mr. Spence (Mr. Roy) applied on behalf of the plaintiff for a rehearing ot the case W. Elliott v. Thos. Taylor. Mr. Weston appeared for the defendant. I After hearing Counsel on both sides, His Worship in giving judgment said he thought the re-bearing should be granted. The matter between the parties was involved and complex. He had undoubtedly- been deceived by Taylor's evidence that the horse was still on his (Taylor's) hands and of little use to him. Had Bis Worship known that Taylor received £lO6 altogether for the horse (including feed and other expenses) and that Schraeder was a partner he certainly should not have held that Taylor had sustained damige. Neither Elliott nor Taylor had behaved straightforwardly. Application for rehearing granted, the question to be confined to that of damages. DEFENDED CASE. Edgar Watt v. Walter Bayly. This was a claim for £8313s for commission on sale of land at Awakino. Mr. Wright appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Kerr for the defendant. The case lasted several hours. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that all cases in which an agent sued for commission were difficult and involved, and introduced some of the most knotty legal questions that ever came into that Court. He had arrived at a conclusion in the case before him with some hesitation. He felt that the plaintiff could not succeed. Watt mentioned the property among several: others, but it was not put among a special select ; on of six properties that were eventually considered worth looking into. W hat was done amounted to little more than an advertisement, and did not amount to such a contractile relationship from which a contract; ensued. The purchase was effected through no action of Watt's, who was a causa sine qua non, but in order to succeed he must have been causa causans.

Verdict for the defendant, with costs £6 17a Gd.